Tag: National Court

  • Is former Finance Secretary Steven Gibson really dead? Or has the country been misled?

    In the last few years, Papua New Guineans were told that the former head of the Finance Department, Steven Gibson, had passed on- deceased.

    Even the courts accepted his passing despite minimal prove.

    ‎But now, a recent photograph that surfaced is raising troubling questions.

    A man almost resembles Mr Gibson with other family members at his daughter’s graduation on November 17, 2025, in Melbourne, Australia


    ‎An image has emerged showing a man strikingly resembling Mr Gibson attending his daughter’s graduation at the University of Melbourne on November 17, 2025, just four months ago.

    A closure look surely resembles Mr Gibson.


    The photograph, unintentionally leaked on a LinkedIn page Chauka Ya, has reignited long-standing rumours that the former Finance Secretary may in fact still be alive.

    Copy of the LinkedIn page where the photograph was published.


    ‎The doubts are not new.

    ‎Despite Mr Gibson’s stature as a senior public servant who once controlled the nation’s purse, there has never been a public death notice, funeral announcement, condolence statement, or official record readily accessible confirming his passing.

    Even a simple Google search yields no obituary, no media report of a burial, and no formal confirmation from authorities. For someone of his profile, such silence has always been unusual.

    An election Poster of Steven Gibson when he contested the Manus Open in 2017.



    ‎The only widely cited reference to his alleged death came during the prosecution of Jacob Yafai. In that trial, senior prosecutor Linda Maru told the court while basing on an affidavit of a police officer, that Mr Gibson had died sometime back in his home province on Manus Island.

    The information was disputed by the defense lawyer, saying there was no evidence to proof Mr Gibson’s death.
    However, Mrs Maru also stated that she had personal knowledge of Mr Gibson’s death because she was also from Manus.

    However, no evidence including death certificate was formally produced in court to support the claim. Nonetheless, the court proceeded on the basis that Mr Gibson had died.

    ‎That development had significant consequences.

    ‎At the time controversial payments were made to Paraka Lawyers, Mr Yafai served as Deputy Secretary for Finance (Operations), while Mr Gibson was Secretary for Finance,  the overall head of the department. Had Mr Gibson been alive, he would almost certainly have been called in as a State witness to faced scrutiny and possible prosecution alongside his subordinate. Instead, with the court  nothing that he was dead, the spotlight fell squarely on Mr Yafai, who was subsequently convicted and jailed for failing to properly verify substantial public funds paid out as legal claims.

    ‎Now, the resurfaced photograph threatens to upend that settled history.

    The striking resemblance


    ‎Observers point to the strong resemblance between the man in the graduation photo and Mr Gibson’s earlier public images, including an election campaign poster from when he once contested national elections back in 2017. The facial features, his built and overall appearance appear consistent, prompting speculation that he may have deliberately remained out of public view to avoid prosecution over alleged misappropriation of millions of kina during his tenure.

    ‎If the man in the photograph is indeed Steven Gibson, it would raise profound legal and constitutional questions. It would mean that a court accepted testimony of his death without documentary proof, and that a key figure in one of the country’s most controversial financial scandals was never brought to account.

    ‎At this stage, the matter remains unverified. A photograph alone does not constitute proof of life. However, the renewed public interest demands clarity.

    ‎It is now up to the relevant authorities to thoroughly investigate and establish the truth: Is Steven Gibson alive? If he is, then the rule of law requires that he be brought before the courts to answer for decisions made during his time as Finance Secretary. If he is not, then official documentation should be made public to put the rumours to rest once and for all.

    ‎Until then, the questions will only grow louder.

    Loading

  • Polye’s wife makes undertaking to complete Sports contract before 2026 PNG Games

    The wife of former Kandep MP Don Polye has asked the National Court to lift restraining orders placed over her bank accounts, offering a formal undertaking that she will use the remaining project funds to complete the procurement of sports equipment ahead of the 2026 PNG Games.

    Kathleen Ruth James, through her lawyer Edward Sasingian of Sasingian Lawyers, appeared before Justice Teresa Berrigan yesterday seeking to set aside the orders issued on 12 September 2025 under section 579(1)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA). In the alternative, she asked the court to invoke its constitutional powers under section 155(4) to set aside the restrictions.

    Central to her application is an undertaking she is willing to give the court: that she will complete the outstanding purchase and delivery of sports equipment required under her K1.7 million contract with the PNG Sports Foundation (PNGSF), ensuring the project is finalised before the 2026 PNG Games.

    In supporting submissions, Mr Sasingian argued that investigations relied on misleading and incorrect statements, particularly within the affidavit of Detective Jeremiah Kalap which formed the basis of the ex parte restraining order. He said key claims concerning the status of the contract, payments allegedly linked to Mr Polye, work already completed, and the value of funds held in the applicant’s accounts were inaccurate.

    He further highlighted correspondence from the PNG Sports Foundation confirming that the project remained active and that the Sport Mapping Report—valued at K500,000—had been received and accepted. This amount, he argued, should be deducted from the K1.757 million paid to Ms James’ company, Karma Investment, when assessing the funds in question.

    Mr Sasingian also submitted that payments made to Sabbath Inn, a business owned by Mr Polye, did not come from PNGSF funds but from a Mappin Mande Trading, and that this distinction had been misrepresented to the court, unfairly implicating Mr Polye.

    Reinforcing Ms James’ willingness to comply with the original project objectives, Mr Sasingian told the court she stands ready to continue the procurement process immediately if the restraining orders are lifted.

    However, Acting Public Prosecutor Helen Roalakona opposed the application, arguing that the restraining orders should remain because an application for a confiscation order is already active under section 59 of the POCA. She maintained that Ms James has adequate remedies available within the POCA framework and therefore cannot rely on section 155(4) of the Constitution.

    Justice Berrigan reserved her ruling to a later date.

    Loading

  • Paraka fights a lone battle, tells court no lawyers willing to assist him

    Paul Paraka, once a prominent lawyer and a powerful figure who owned the biggest law firm in the country that recruited, groomed and build many lawyers, is now fighting a lone battle.

    “No lawyers are willing to assist me with my cases,” Paraka told a judge at the Waigani Supreme Court on Tuesday this week as he battles his conviction and 20-years imprisonment for misappropriating of over K162 million in public funds.

    His voice subdued but steady, Mr Paraka pleaded to the single Supreme Court judge, Justice David Cannings, to hear him out and grant him his application requesting for an extension of time to file an application for leave for a Slip Rule application.

    For Paraka, who once helped shape the lawyering profession by recruiting bulk of new law graduates every year, the courtroom has now become a place he walks into alone. He told the court that for more than a year he had pleaded for help from the Office of the Public Solicitor and approached private lawyers, only to be turned away each time.

    “My numerous requests to the Office of the Public Solicitor and even private lawyers were all unsuccessful,” he said, explaining why he was seeking an extension of time to file an application for leave to make a Slip Rule application.

    Seated as he made his submissions, Paraka painted a picture of a man battling not only the justice system but his own declining health. He recalled how he filed his initial application within the required 21-day period in November 2024, and how, almost immediately afterwards, his world collapsed.

    He became critically ill and was hospitalised on November 1, 2024. Doctors later diagnosed him with severe triple-vessel coronary artery disease. The emotional strain following the dismissal of his appeal, he said, “crushed” him and accelerated the deterioration of his health.

    Medical records tendered in court showed that Paraka had undergone multiple invasive angiogram procedures and currently suffers seven arterial blockages. Specialists, he said, are recommending urgent overseas surgery.

    “Your Honour, that is why I couldn’t file and serve my application for extension on time,” he told the court.

    With no legal assistance while in custody, Paraka said he prepared his Slip Rule arguments alone by drafting 37 grounds of alleged judicial “slips” from his prison cell.

    But Acting Public Prosecutor Helen Roalakona opposed the application, arguing that although Paraka filed on time, he failed to serve it within the mandatory 21-day period. She said the grounds raised were not slips at all, but attempts to revisit arguments already rejected by the National Court.

    Justice Cannings agreed that Paraka had managed to file other proceedings and should not be treated differently. However, because the application itself was filed within time, the court still had jurisdiction to grant an extension.

    Justice Cannings did grant Paraka his applicationg, allowing Paraka more time for him to file his application for leave for a Slip Rule application in the Supreme Court.

    Justice Cannings set the matter for directions hearing next Monday.

    The court will then determine whether a single Supreme Court judge or a full bench will hear the Slip Rule application. A tentative hearing date has been set for Tuesday, 16 December 2025, at 1:30pm. 

    Loading

  • Supreme Court to hear Yama’s substantive appeal

    After a long delay, the full hearing of the substantive appeal over the Madang Provincial seat will proceed in the Supreme Court at Waigani on November 27, 2025.

    The appeal is pursued by former Madang Governor Sir Peter Charles Yama, seeking to overturn a National Court decision that dismissed his election petition challenging the results of the 2022 national election for the Madang Provincial seat. The incumbent Ramsey Pariwa is named as first respondent, with the Electoral Commission as second respondent.

    Yama initially filed the election petition after the 2022 polls, alleging improper conduct and undue influences during the counting that swung votes to Pariwa.

    However, the National Court dismissed Sir Peter’s petition on October 23, 2023, on the basis that Yama’s key witness’s evidence was inconsistent and lacked necessary corroboration.

    The court found that Sir Peter’s key witness gave evidences that were not supported by other witnesses and that the evidences were not credible.

    This prompted Sir Peter to further appeal the dismissal in the Supreme Court, seeking leave to review the National Court’s decision.

    Following the grant of leave, the incumbent Mr Pariwa filed a number of applications to dismissed the review application.

    Recently, a Supreme Court bench allowed Sir Peter to press his review to a substantive hearing by dismissing objections from Pariwa that sought to halt the progress of the petition and granting Sir Peter the opportunity to have the case heard by a full bench.

    In the substantive hearing, the Supreme Court is expected to determine a grey area of law relating to arguments on whether corroboration was required in an election petition trial.

    Sir Peter contents that the trial judge had erred in fact and law when his (Sir Peter’s) witness in chief gave direct evidences during the trial and those evidences were not refuted or countered by Pariwa’s witnesses.

    He also argues that corroboration was not required in an election petition case as it was a provision of its own according to law, and that the trial judge had erred in finding otherwise.

    If the Supreme Court rule in favor of Sir Peter, this would set a new precedent for future election petition cases.

    Loading